Minorities will be the majority by 2042 (Madison: statistics, safe, beaches)

[MPBsr]

Originally Posted by Sunil's Dad

I do not believe Obama is running on race. In any event, the story you are posting here only shows Obama's reaction to the race-baiting tactics that Republicans have been putting on the table since long before Obama was old enough to vote. That statement was a reaction to the base race-bating tactics the Republicans have already used to try to scare elements of the white population who, frankly don't really need much to scare them. The Republicans have been injecting race into campaigns since the days of Barry Goldwater; Obama was simply calling them out on it.

Do the names Roger Ailes, Lee Atwater or Karl Rove ring any bells?

If you want to go back, lets go back to when Dems like Al Gore Sr. voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And while we're going back, a number of Dems were against Lincoln freeing the slaves.

BTW..Show me where Obama was reacting from Repubs from the past? Or are you putting words in his mouth?

[solibs]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Why run on race at all?

exactly. and why run on religion? why run on gender?

I think Obama was doing his best to avoid the issue for as long as he could. When he couldn't avoid it anymore he gave his speech on race at the Constitution Center.

I'm not expecting anything big from him. He's just another politician. Sure, I like what I hear him saying a lot more than the other guy but in the end he's still a politician and it doesn't really matter what they say. It's what they do that matters. And far from being a uniter or much of a decider these past 8 years have been a divisive and indecisive disaster.

In the end I'll vote for Obama because, in many aspects, I can relate to him our lives and politics have a lot of common threads. I have nothing in common with the other guy just like I have little in common with Hillary.

[Lucario]

Originally Posted by MPBsr

If you want to go back, lets go back to when Dems like Al Gore Sr. voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And while we're going back, a number of Dems were against Lincoln freeing the slaves.

BTW..Show me where Obama was reacting from Repubs from the past? Or are you putting words in his mouth?

No need to put words in his mouth. It's pretty doggone obvious.........

[K90]

Minorities the majority by 2042? Complete and utter bull. A few years ago, the statistics said 2050. I can bet within a few years from now it will be 2035 if not sooner, but in reality, we all know it will be before that. It's a shame, but it is and was unavoidable.

[MPBsr]

Originally Posted by Sunil's Dad

No need to put words in his mouth. It's pretty doggone obvious.........

Oh I see....now we believe in the obvious, but not facts.

[Lucario]

Originally Posted by MPBsr

Oh I see....now we believe in the obvious, but not facts.

Aren't we disingenuous?..............the facts are that the Republicans have been stoking up racial fears for the past 40 years or so; Obama has been the target of some not-so-subtle distortions, and he is responding to them.

[Giantone]

I hope this comes out right.To run as a Black man that means he is disowning his white blood and relatives,his black side is more important then his white.I don't care what he looks like ....yeah he might look black ,so what he's not.Kinda like someone from Africa who hears another person being called "African American" when they are not from Africa, they get upset.Like it or not the man is as white as he is black and he needs to remind people of that.

[JMadison]

Originally Posted by Sunil's Dad

OK, I think this is a quasi-troll job, but I'll bite. This post has elements of fantasy and bizarre racial notion (like something you might see on Stormfront), but there are some kernels of truth here. First of all, why do sub-saharan features appear dangerous to anyone? Anyone who sees a certain type of ethnic features as dangerous and confrontational are simply transferring their own racial/psychological baggage onto others. And, my second bolded comment of yours points to this; my experience shows me what you say is definitely true. Some people are just full of hate. But that doesn't mean they should be allowed to screw up my life, or anyone else's. These people are detrimental to society in general. And I hope, indeed, that they continue to flee, that white flight (or any other type of flight) continues until the haters find themselves forced to live subterranean, oceanic, or extraterrestrial existences. Good bleeping riddance. And if you are one of these people, Madison, the same goes for you. I suspect that you are; you seem to know this argument a little too intimately. ("I know of one individual who," or "these people believe"). And how does a black man using ebonics (whatever that is) in the presence of whites or non-blacks equate to whites using nasty racial slurs? I'll tell you how. It doesn't.

I hate to tell you this, but I believe you are one of these nasty racists whose views you claim to be simply discussing. If you are not, well, hey, have a nice day.

So why is it OK to force africanization on people who don't want it by policy and law?

No I'm not trolling. I'm attempting to create some understanding in the types of liberals who would legislate thier "liberalness" on everyone, whether they want it or not. As I believe I stated, I'd be willing to provide some insight into the opposing view.

Personally I feel groups like Stormfront are ridiculous too. They seem to want to recreate the Third Reich. Can't understand why anyone would want to do that.


However I do agree with the idea of "the right to not associate" along the same theory as "at will employment"... "for any reason or no reason".

Beyond that, institutionalized reverse discrimination is no more valid that discrimination. The goal should be equal in the eyes of the law, no more, no less.

I'm not for any group that would force it's agenda on anyone actually. Granted it's seems a practical impossibility to build a world where everyone is in nothing but freely chosen peer-to-peer relationships, and everyone can have thier own island.

As for why sub-saharan features would appear dangerous. I can't say what the underlying basis is, but I know it occurs. No idea what the biological basis of that reaction would be. My best guess is that it has to do with the built in expressions people have and how people perceive them. For example it's generally percieved that smaller chins and noses are feminine traits and the reverse. On average sub saharans seem to have more pronounced jaw lines. I believe that may be a testoterone marker, and thus may be percieved as more agressive. However, not being a psychologist, that's just a guess.

In the end "discrimination" is really "discernment" to an extreme degree. Everytime someone decides to not sleep with someone because they are too fat, too skinny, have/have not a certain eye color, etc... a discriminatory action has occured. It's just human nature to try and decide what is good or bad for us, and sometimes it *is* based on appearances. After all something like 85-90% of information is taken in visually. So every time someone says "Well he/she isn't my *type*" they generally mean physically, LOL! Since I'm not leading man material, I suspect that has happened many times to me, knowingly and unknowingly, LOL! And being older and somewhat greying, but in a career field with a young bias, I'm quite sure my looks have worked against me at times. In fact, most contracts I've gotten have been won where no face to face interview was required. On a percentage basis, I've gotten fewer of the face to face cases. I suspect because I look like a conservative oldster. Especially in an industry populated largely with poorly dressing younger folks, LOL!

Next on the list would be financial discrimination. I know for a fact, as a working class person, when I lived in the Palm Beaches, that was definitely a social strike against me in places where the wealthy congregated. Didn't feel good. But in retrospect, to be totally expected.

So it's all nothing new, and seems to me the right to choose shouldn't be limited, whether it's for or against.

As for detrimental to society, well, there's plenty of data out there to substantiate there are all kinds of detrimental elements out there. I'd say that maybe one of the oldest sayings of all might well apply here. "Good fences make good neighbors". For example, do you ever really expect the mid-east to cool off? And those are people that by some accounts are of the *same* race and genetics.

And isn't it true that most people believe the situation over there could best be solved by having separate homelands for the Israelites and Palistineans?

Now, let's address this:

"And I hope, indeed, that they continue to flee, that white flight (or any other type of flight) continues until the haters find themselves forced to live subterranean, oceanic, or extraterrestrial existences. Good bleeping riddance. And if you are one of these people, Madison, the same goes for you."

So it's OK for you to force your agenda on me until I'm out in extra-terrestrial-land. So where is the protection of *my* rights in this? This is classical liberal thinking. It's OK to force your agenda on others, while demanding respect for your own... claiming to be tolerant... but it would appear tolerant of only those who believe exactly as you do. So much for your "tolerance" of opinions diverse from your own.

Reminds me of California. So liberal it's the most regulated state in the union.

[JMadison]

Originally Posted by Giantone

I hope this comes out right.To run as a Black man that means he is disowning his white blood and relatives,his black side is more important then his white.I don't care what he looks like ....yeah he might look black ,so what he's not.Kinda like someone from Africa who hears another person being called "African American" when they are not from Africa, they get upset.Like it or not the man is as white as he is black and he needs to remind people of that.

Well, I think that even if Obama wanted to run as "white" no one would let him. Spoken or not, the "one drop rule" that Oprah has mentioned still seems to be the thinking that is prevalent.

Sadly, he's pretty much trapped in this respect.

As for African vrs. African-American, there is a pretty clear difference, though I don't know if it's defined anywhere official. African-Americans pretty much trace back to slavery. African (immigrants) are those like the Somalis being brought into Minneapolis/St. Paul. They don't have a heritage in (U.S.) slavery.

Granted any given African might have been enslaved over in Africa to this day. Google on "Slavery" and "Chocolate" and you'll find that 2/3rd of the world's chocolate is now coming out of africa, and they are selling their children into slavery to harvest it.

Personally I avoid chocolate, cocao, etc. now that I know this. Having contacted a number of chocolate companies about it, none of them can guarantee africa free chocolate.

Same is possible for tea and coffee as well. The French started tea plantations in Kenya. They are still there to this day. Lipton Tea stated to me that they do, in fact, source from Kenya and Tanzania. So checked that off my grocery list as well.

And well, diamonds and gold, BMW 3 series and Mercedes C class, etc. as well. Essentially anything from South Africa. I believe Toyota is planning to make Corollas in S. Africa this year or next as well. Even though thier execs have stated they don't think they could sell the S. A. BMW's in Japan. That no one would knowingly buy them. (At least that's what they said back in 2004 when BMW announced S.A. production.)

The AGOA is causing more and more of that stuff to be imported, so it's hard to avoid. Hard to even know if it's being slipped in. Especially since some of the companies, such as Nestle's aren't even U.S. corps.

[JMadison]

Originally Posted by Badfish740

Good God is this ever sad...

I wonder though-what is the solution? Seriously folks, what do we do about "the handouts?" By "the handouts" I mean every government program mentioned in this thread-Head Start, Affirmative Action, TANF, WIC, unemployment, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, etc... It's great to talk about the good old days when people believed in the dignity of work and so on and so forth, but what about solutions? What is the cure all? Is there one? What is the cause? Now many folks in this thread have stated over and over again "I've worked hard, I've struggled, I've sacrificed," but what does that mean for those who receive "the handouts?" Why don't they work hard? Why don't they sacrifice? Why don't they struggle (or do they)? Is it a cultural/racial thing? Is it a societal problem? Why is it the way it is? Why won't anyone address why it is the way it is?

I've said this before on this forum and I'll say it again. We as a society have lost the idea that work is dignifying. Look at the disdainful way a "blue collar" town is talked about on this forum. God forbid anyone lives among the working class these days. Some folks will stand up and tell other folks to work hard, struggle, and toil, but that doesn't mean they want to be dining next to them at the country club. One of the things I love about my town is that it has a pretty good mix of blue collar, white collar, and in-between folks. Personally I wear a suit to work everyday, but I'm well aware that I was able to go to college via the fruits of a strong back and dirty hands. Hard work has become something that people like to talk about, but no one wants to associate with it. The guys down at the union hall are not seen as "honorable hard workers"-they're seen as uncouth individuals with strong backs and weak minds. Maybe if society starts actually VALUING work rather than just sitting around TALKING about it people will start DOING it. Until then don't expect to see much bootstrap pulling.

You get a real education going from blue collar roots to a white collar world. It allows you to see just how little some people value other people. I've heard the condescending remarks my coworkers make about things like NASCAR, hunting and fishing, pickup trucks, etc...all it takes is a commercial on the television near the lunch table to get someone going. I see the way my boss looks dismissively at the repair guys who come to fix this that or the other thing that's broken in the office. When I'm for a beer with one of my buddies from home, some of whom own their own businesses and are quite successful, we have a good laugh about it, but really, it's indicative of a serious problem. How can the U.S. ever recapture its greatness if we can't be proud of what made us (making steel, cars, and whathaveyou) great?

Well, I'm not sure that all those things you mention are handouts. Certainly not Social Security. People pay into it their whole lives.

Yes, I agree. Hard work is touted, but being working class is not. I think this has it roots in the popular media.

Rock Stars, Sports Stars, CEO's, Dr.s, Lawyers, at a few other fictional things are glorified. If you work hard and don't make lots of $$$ you are essentially "stupid".

Consider that old episode of Saturday Night live where the plumber character was showing his but crack... that's the general idea pushed.

Beyond that, the media does seem to have a bias against southerners. The NASCAR thing you mention. For some reason "white trash" is OK to say loudly. Put any other race in the adjective position there... and you are a racist.

I don't know what the solution is. Survival, money, push us all into separate corners. Quite likely that unless a threat to all our survival, collectively, comes along, it will stay the same.

Well, until everyone becomes a grey or whatever you would call a racially homogenous mix.

But then, because it seems to be a human trait to do so, there'd just be other divisions. Smarter/dumber, faster/slower, taller/shorter.

Discernement/discrimination appears to be some inate thing we do.